From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: christoffer.dall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 19:47:38 +0100 Subject: [GIT PULL 0/2] KVM/ARM Fixes for 3.19 In-Reply-To: <54B4141E.5070602@redhat.com> References: <1420981811-18731-1-git-send-email-christoffer.dall@linaro.org> <54B39EA4.50808@redhat.com> <20150112171923.GA24754@cbox> <54B4141E.5070602@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20150112184738.GN3868@cbox> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 07:36:14PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 12/01/2015 18:19, Christoffer Dall wrote: > >> > Hmm, that's a bit ugly. I'll apply the patches directly too, please do > >> > a "git reset --hard kvm/master" before applying more stuff. > >> > > > ok, we did try to (and say publicly) that we'd keep kvmarm/master a > > stable branch (like it also says about kvm/master on the KVM wiki), so > > that's why I did this. > > > > I guess we can just require people that follow kvmarm/master (if any) to > > deal with things accordingly. > > Yeah, I agree that this shouldn't have happened. > > It's not the end of the world. People that pull from kvmarm/master will > almost always rebase their trees, and the rebase will discard the > duplicate patches. > > The big problem with rebasing happens if you _drop_ patches. In that > case, whoever rebases will keep the patch that you dropped, and most > likely will not notice. > That's a good point. And I don't think anyone directly integrates the kvmarm/master branch into anything anyway. I will reset the branch. Thanks, -Christoffer From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoffer Dall Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 0/2] KVM/ARM Fixes for 3.19 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 19:47:38 +0100 Message-ID: <20150112184738.GN3868@cbox> References: <1420981811-18731-1-git-send-email-christoffer.dall@linaro.org> <54B39EA4.50808@redhat.com> <20150112171923.GA24754@cbox> <54B4141E.5070602@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Marc Zyngier , kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Paolo Bonzini Return-path: Received: from mail-la0-f51.google.com ([209.85.215.51]:61189 "EHLO mail-la0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753535AbbALSrl (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2015 13:47:41 -0500 Received: by mail-la0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ms9so25620088lab.10 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:47:40 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54B4141E.5070602@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 07:36:14PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 12/01/2015 18:19, Christoffer Dall wrote: > >> > Hmm, that's a bit ugly. I'll apply the patches directly too, please do > >> > a "git reset --hard kvm/master" before applying more stuff. > >> > > > ok, we did try to (and say publicly) that we'd keep kvmarm/master a > > stable branch (like it also says about kvm/master on the KVM wiki), so > > that's why I did this. > > > > I guess we can just require people that follow kvmarm/master (if any) to > > deal with things accordingly. > > Yeah, I agree that this shouldn't have happened. > > It's not the end of the world. People that pull from kvmarm/master will > almost always rebase their trees, and the rebase will discard the > duplicate patches. > > The big problem with rebasing happens if you _drop_ patches. In that > case, whoever rebases will keep the patch that you dropped, and most > likely will not notice. > That's a good point. And I don't think anyone directly integrates the kvmarm/master branch into anything anyway. I will reset the branch. Thanks, -Christoffer